I affirm that the statement attempted to take a broader view of human sexuality in light of the Christian faith beyond the issue of homosexuality. This is long overdue in the church’s conversations about faith, ethics and morality in regards to sex. I specifically appreciated what the statement expressed relative to sexual harassment, abuse, addiction and commercial trafficking and exploitation. The reality of sexual slavery and addiction is not being acknowledged or engaged enough by the body of Christ.

That being expressed, I was deeply troubled by the social statement's approach to Scripture. Interestingly, the statement makes an appeal to the Lutheran Confessions, naming the Reformation Principles of solus Christus (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), and sola fide (by faith alone) as guiding the authors in their understanding of what is sin. However, what is surprisingly left out in the statement is the very starting point for understanding God’s plan of salvation for a fallen humanity--the foundational principle of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone). Generation after generation of Christians from all denominations believed that the revelation of God, our understanding of who Jesus is, our self-awareness of our human condition comes through the Bible. Our Protestant heritage is built on the conviction that Holy Scripture is the sole source and norm for all Christian teachings.

I also found the theological premise of the document to be flawed. The statement seeks to ground the ethics of human sexuality solely on the gospel of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and justification by faith alone. While these are both central aspects of our understanding of salvation, Christian ethics is and has always been also based on the law of God, which comes to us through two channels, through the Bible and through the structures of creation. By reason and conscience people can know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, by the way “things have been made.” (Romans 1:20)

While we need Jesus to fully know God's character and will, we do not need to believe in Christ to learn what is against God's creative design and intent, the law of nature. Put another way, non-Christians can be quite moral (note I didn't write GOOD) people without confessing Christ. The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments are clear that when God created the world and human beings, he designed all things to obey certain laws.

To ignore the Law of God and to replace it with the Gospel is not biblical. Jesus himself revealed that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Martin Luther echoed this when some of his closest disciples said that since we are saved by faith in the Gospel, we are free from doing the works of the Law. Traditionally, the Lutheran denomination of which I am a part, has understood there to be a three-fold purpose for the Law of God relative to the Gospel, that of a mirror, a curb, and a guide.

First, the Law serves as a mirror in that it reveals the depths of our sin and drives us to despair. Only when, in our despair, we realize our total inability to save ourselves are we prepared to turn to the life-giving Gospel and receive the gift of salvation that is freely ours in Jesus Christ. Second, the Law also serves as a curb on sin, protecting individuals and society from the horror of total anarchy that would prevail if God simply abandoned us to act on our sinful natures. Third, the Law provides a guide for living out our new lives in Jesus according to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture. If you read the recently passed social statement, the authors of this document openly dismiss this traditionally understood third use of the Law.

Here's a great example from the social statement itself, of why a high regard for Scripture and some appreciation for the third use of the Law are both so vital. The social statement expresses that “Promiscuity and sexual activity without a spirit of mutuality and commitment are sinful because of their destructive consequences for individuals, relationships, and the community.” Logically would it not then follow that promiscuity and sexual activity entered into with a spirit of mutuality and commitment would not be sinful because the spirit of mutuality and commitment would remove the destructive consequences?

Beyond the issue of homosexuality, many heterosexuals embrace and celebrate being “swingers" or "playing the field" often defending that their actions are entered into with a spirit of mutuality and commitment. If we ignore or discount the biblical injunctions forbidding such behavior, how can we argue against such behavior?

And there's the rub. Promiscuity is sin because God forbids it, without regard to the “spirit” with which the sinner enters into such activity.

Throughout the document, ‘trust’ is listed as the paramount value in determining what is right. Here's a direct quote: “Central to our vocation in relation to human sexuality, is the building and protection of trust in relationships.” I would argue that the fundamental basis of trust in human relationships is our trust in our relationship with God. The basis of that trust in God derives from God's revelation, from God's Word. To establish a basis for trust on another other foundation is to put the wisdom of man ahead of the wisdom of God.

August 25, 2009

Given the recent actions taken within the denomination I serve, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), many have asked, “How can and why should a church remain a part of this denomination?” Similar questions have been and continued to be raised in my denomination of origin, the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA). As the cultural winds of change persist in blowing through one denomination and into the next, there are churches and individuals packing their bags and looking to leave for greener pastures. Some hope to create a smaller offshoot of their denomination. Others aim to find some other gathering of Christians that they can affiliate with.

At some point in the future, the church I pastor, Grace Lutheran may pursue a similar course of action--but not now. For as troubling as these recent decisions by our denomination are, I believe that the disunity of the church is just as grave a sin any other. Scripture attests and we affirm that there is one faith, one body, one holy, catholic (universal) church called into existence and sustained by God in Jesus Christ. The splintering of the church is the tragic legacy of our Protestant heritage.

Lutherans as well as other children of the Protestant Reformation would do well to remember that in our story Martin Luther never sought to leave the Roman Catholic Church. Even in the face of great abuses of power and huge differences in understandings of Scripture, Luther did not deem it his prerogative to leave the church. He believed God’s call for him was to keep talking and praying so as to be a means of reform from within. Ultimately, Luther didn’t end the conversation—the Catholic Church did.

Like Luther, we can’t give up on the conversation or the prayers for the branch of the church that we are a part of. Shopping around for another church is not a solution. It is a romantic notion to think that there is a more perfect church out there. Every one has its own share of problems.

In the end, where are you going to go? You can get away from the ugly reality of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians but you cannot escape from the bride of Christ. She is often beautiful but she can be a whore. She is often unfaithful but she is forever betrothed to the one who has called her, to the one who will redeem her—the groom, Jesus Christ. As with any other marriage, divorce is never to be initiated or desired as an option but should come as a last and final resort.

Prayer remains our greatest asset in these times. Pray unceasingly for our denomination, for our church and for the world we are called to serve. Let us also hold fast to the counsel of the very Scriptures we seek to honor and protect:

"Therefore, we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." -2 Corinthians 4:16-18

As for me and my house, as long as the ELCA affirms the right of individual congregations to be “bound by their conscience,” Grace will continue to operate in accordance with her convictions as to Scripture. When and if this freedom is in jeopardy from within the ELCA, we will regretfully consider other options. Until then I stand with my brother Martin Luther convinced that our best means of fostering change, of bringing reform, is from within.

August 23, 2009

As many of you know, I am a Presbyterian (PCUSA) pastor serving a Lutheran congregation (ELCA). While my denomination of origin remains unresolved as to how it will navigate the cultural, ethical and theological tensions raised by the questions of sexuality and the church, my denomination of call has made its decision.

It is a decision that is not surprising and yet controversial. It is a decision to agree to disagree, a decision to try and ignore the elephant in the room even though the elephant makes it impossible to know the way in or out.

Last week the elected representatives, both lay people and ordained pastors, from congregations throughout the United States gathered together in Minneapolis to pray and discern God’s will for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Here is a summary of what happened:

2. The assembly agreed: “that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered (a.k.a. ordained) leaders of this church.”

3. The assembly agreed: “that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”

4. The assembly agreed to “respect the bound consciences of all,” thus allowing those willing to agree to disagree to remain united under one organization.

5. Lastly, the assembly allowed for individual churches to be flexible in their implementation of the previous resolutions while directing formal changes that needed to be made to implement the previous agreements.

What does all this mean? In essence, the denomination I serve has implemented what might be called a “local option.” As a whole, the ELCA will not exclude anyone who is in a “life-long, monogamous” relationship from being called as a pastor—including gays and lesbians. However, individual congregations within the ELCA that believe that homosexuality is sin do not have to embrace same gender unions as well as calling pastors in such relationships.

With these changes the ELCA is seeking to allow the church to agree to disagree in our reading of Scripture as well as how to live out the Scriptures. This is an unrealistic expectation since our shared understanding of the Scriptures is the core basis of our affiliation as a denomination. Our theology is the basis of our identity and what holds us together as Lutherans or Presbyterians.

“Live and let live.” “Agree to disagree.” “To each his own.” These are proverbs of old that remain very contemporary. While these adages sound great in theory, they prove to be most difficult to put into practice. Pithy sayings do not a viable solution make. While they appear to offer wisdom and hope, they sacrifice the very building blocks of relationship and community: conflict, accountability and dialogue. It is analogous to a married couple that is having problems choosing to look the other way or to just not talk about the issues that keep them at odds.

Don’t get me wrong. We’ve been having this conflict over sexuality for a LONG time in the church. No one would love to move on from this issue more than I would. But moving on by not talking anymore, moving on by looking the other way, isn’t moving on at all. All we are doing, like that married couple having problems, is burying something—something toxic, something unstable, something that will eventually seep to the surface or worse, explode from within.

There is no reason to stop talking. At the end of the day, our situation as the church is not altogether bleak and hopeless. We can trust that God will create movements for renewal and reform, as he has always done in the past. We have his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Ordinary people, sinners and saints both, like you and I, still have the gift of an extraordinary message. It is a message of the life, death and rising of Jesus and that all who believe in him share in the healing, the hope and the salvation of the Kingdom he brings.

It is because of that Gospel—that good news—that we cannot afford to agree to disagree. The stakes of life and death are too high. The riches of grace that is ours in Jesus is too costly to be converted into the tawdriness of tolerance. The unconditional love we have received in Christ is worth far more than conditional niceties of political correctness.

For the sake of the Kingdom, I take the risk of stating the following convictions:

I believe that the possibility for a full and healthy sexual relationship exists only within the confines of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman.

I believe that Scripture clearly defines homosexuality as a sin, contrary to God’s creative design and intent and thus are a reflection of our broken humanity.

I believe that those who are called to serve in leadership in the church are to aspire to live a life in obedience to Scripture, in accountability to the church body and repentant of any self-acknowledged practice defined as sin.

However, I believe homosexuality, like all sexual brokenness is but one of many manifestations of the tragic nature of our humanity. I do not elevate sexual sin above other sins and I affirm God’s forgiveness of all sins in Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, I believe in the sanctity, dignity and defense of all human life, no matter what gender or sexual orientation. We have a responsibility to be good and proactive stewards of the peace, wellbeing, shelter, nurture and care of all persons—particularly those with whom we disagree.

For the sake of the Kingdom, I remain open to listening and talking with those who read the Scriptures differently. Let the dialogue continue...